The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 establishes a new framework to allow the Governor-General, on the advice of the AFP Minister and with the agreement of the Foreign Affairs Minister, to formally list foreign state entities that have sponsored or engaged in terrorist acts targeting Australia.
It also creates a suite of new offences for engaging in, supporting, financing or dealing with those listed state sponsors, and extends existing counter-terrorism orders and enforcement powers across multiple Commonwealth Acts to cover state-sponsored terrorism.
From the explanatory memorandum:
The Bill would amend the Criminal Code to allow the Commonwealth to list foreign state entities that have engaged in a state terrorist act, or otherwise supported or advocated terrorist acts targeted at Australia, and to create new offences and extend enforcement powers to address state-sponsored terrorism.
Schedule 1 inserts a new Part 5.3A into the Criminal Code Act 1995, comprising:
Schedule 2 amends Part 5.3 orders (control orders, preventative detention, post-sentence orders) in the Criminal Code and updates the Crimes Act 1914, Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to apply these regimes to state sponsors of terrorism. Schedule 3 makes consequential amendments to over a dozen Commonwealth Acts (e.g. AusCheck Act, Australian Passports Act, ASIO Act, Customs Act) to align treatment of state sponsors with existing terrorist organisation provisions. Schedule 4 updates prohibited symbols offences in Division 80 and makes technical sentencing amendments to the Crimes Act.
Australia faces a complex security environment in which foreign states may covertly sponsor terrorist attacks against our citizens and interests. By creating a clear legal mechanism to list and criminalise state sponsors of terrorism, the Bill provides law enforcement with a targeted deterrent against such state-backed threats.
Under the new framework, any foreign state entity that has engaged in, supported or advocated terrorist acts targeted at Australia can be designated. This designation triggers offences for involvement—ranging from planning and training to financing and association—thereby raising the cost of state-sponsored violence and protecting lives and property [Judgment].
The Bill also extends proven counter-terrorism tools—control orders, detention orders and surveillance powers—to state sponsors, ensuring consistent application of preventative measures. Coupled with appropriate defences for lawful and unavoidable dealings, the framework balances security needs with individual rights, reinforcing public confidence in Australia’s resilience to evolving threats.
While the goal of countering terrorism is uncontested, the Bill’s broad and vaguely worded offences risk capturing legitimate conduct—such as diplomatic engagement, academic research or journalistic inquiry—under the guise of “dealings” with a listed state sponsor of terrorism. This may chill freedom of expression, association and scholarly activity without clearer boundaries [Judgment].
The power to list or delist state entities lies solely with the AFP and Foreign Affairs Ministers, with no independent judicial oversight. This concentration of executive authority invites potential misuse or politicisation, undermining democratic accountability and Australia’s rule-of-law traditions [Judgment]. The extension of intrusive measures—control orders, detention powers and expanded surveillance—to state sponsors could disproportionately infringe civil liberties if not tightly constrained.
Moreover, existing sanction regimes and diplomatic tools already allow Australia to respond to hostile state behaviour. The creation of overlapping criminal offences duplicates these mechanisms, introduces legal uncertainty for businesses and NGOs, and may provoke retaliatory diplomatic or economic measures that harm Australia’s interests.
2025-10-08
House of Representatives
Before House of Representatives
Unspecified
Attorney-General
National Security, Foreign Policy, Criminal Law Reform